Kobach Across The Country

July 15, 2010 11:58 am ET

Kris Kobach seems to have made it his life's work to purge the United States of immigrants. Whether on the local, state, or national level, Kobach has made a lot of headway in his fight to rid the country of hardworking Latino residents.

Kobach's History Of Anti-Immigrant
Rhetoric

Kobach: The Vast
Majority Of Illegal Immigrants "Will Be Dependent On Government" If They
Receive Amnesty. According to the Topeka
Capital-Journal, Kobach "said illegal aliens who receive amnesty - the vast
majority of whom will be dependent on government - after becoming citizens will
consequently vote to keep in place the political system that benefits them." [Topeka Capital-Journal, 4/4/09]

Kobach Called For
Sending U.S.
Military To U.S.-Mexican Border At The 2004 Republican National Convention. According
to Salon.com, Kobach "was even awarded a coveted speaking role at the
Republican National Convention in New
York. On the opening day, Kobach took to the podium
to call for the deployment of the U.S. Army along the U.S.-Mexican border to
stop immigrant border crossers, in a bold rebuke of the party's more moderate
immigration platform." [Salon.com, 10/18/04]

Kobach In America's Communities

Kobach Says He
Charges Cities $50,000 A Year For His Legal Services. According to Yahoo!
News: "Kobach says that...he normally charges about $50,000 a year to fight back
challenges to his ordinances, which is under market rate. 'I charge lower rates
just to make sure the cities can afford it,' he said." [Yahoo! News, 6/24/10]

Kobach Says His
"Driving Principle Is To Restore The Rule Of Law." According to the New York Times, Kobach stated: "The
driving principle is to restore the rule of law...You have members of Congress
throwing up their hands and saying the system is broken. I really think that's
a cop-out. Different parts of the system are working fine. The question is, How
do you actually enforce the law in a vast nation that has very different
circumstances in different states?" [New York Times, 7/20/09]

Kobach Believes That
States Have "Inherent Authority" To Enforce Federal Immigration Laws. According to Mother
Jones: "During these years, Kobach advanced an idea that had long been
circulating in conservative legal circles: that local and state officials have
the 'inherent authority' to enforce federal immigration laws. This unorthodox
notion bucked the prevailing view-long held by both Republican and Democratic
administrations-that the federal government has principal jurisdiction over
immigration under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. If local and state
governments were to strike out on their own, they could undermine federal
efforts, create the potential for draconian crackdowns, and detract from law
enforcement efforts by discouraging immigrants from cooperating with police,
critics argue. In 2002, however, Ashcroft's Office of Legal Counsel issued a
memo, which Kobach contributed to, supporting the 'inherent authority' theory."
[Mother Jones, 5/7/10]

Kobach: "Single
Largest Factor" Encouraging States To Combat Illegal Immigration Is The "Fiscal
Burden That It Imposes Upon The States." In a paper published in the Georgetown Immigration Law Review,
Kobach stated: "Without question, the single largest factor motivating state
governments to enact legislation discouraging illegal immigration is the fiscal
burden that it imposes upon the states. [Georgetown
Immigration Law Review, accessed 7/2/10]

Sand Mountain Reporter: Kobach Sees Small
Towns "As Financial Windfalls." In an editorial, Ben
Shurett, publisher of the Sand Mountain
Reporter, stated: "I fear Mr. Kobach targets town like ours, and towns like
Hazleton, Pa., Valley Park, Mo., and Farmers Branch, Texas,
as financial windfalls. I think he comes to our towns and says things to imply Albertville is paying an
additional $6 million to $10 million to educate children of illegal immigrants
and incite people into hiring him. I think he preys on the legitimate concerns,
the irrational fears and even some bigoted attitudes to convince cities to hire
him to represent their interests in lawsuits that may not be winnable." [Sand Mountain Reporter, 4/27/10]

Kobach Will Continue
"About Six" Outstanding Immigration Law Cases While Secretary Of State If
Elected. According to the Wichita
Eagle: "If elected, Kobach said he would continue work on about six
immigration law cases he is involved in around the country. He said he would
work on the cases in his free time and did not plan to take on new legal
cases." [Wichita
Eagle, 6/9/10]

Kobach Advised Attorney General John Ashcroft And Decimated
The Board Of Immigration Appeals

Kobach Was A White
House Fellow And Adviser To John Ashcroft On Immigration Law And Border
Security. According to the biography page of his 2010 Secretary of State
campaign website: "In 2001, Professor Kobach was awarded a White House
Fellowship, which took him to Washington,
DC, to work for the Bush
Administration in the personal office of Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Professor Kobach served as the Attorney General's chief advisor on immigration
law and border security." [KrisKobach.org, accessed 6/23/10]

Kobach's "Reforms" Of Board Of
Immigration Appeals Led To An Overburdened, Superficial System

Kobach Led Justice Department
Reforms To Board Of Immigration Appeals. According to the biography page of
his 2010 Secretary of State campaign website: "Professor Kobach also led
Department of Justice reforms of the immigration court system, resulting in the
reshaping of the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2002." [KrisKobach.org,
accessed 6/23/10]

Kobach Reduced Number
Of Judges Who Heard Immigration Appeals From 23 To 11, Which Led To Issuance Of
One-Line Decisions. According to The Pitch:
"In 2002, [Kobach] led a reform effort that reduced the number of judges who
heard immigration appeals from 23 to 11. To keep up with the increasing number
of cases, the smaller cadre of judges began issuing one-line opinions in
response to complex legal decisions." [The
Pitch, 1/4/07]

Former INS General
Counsel: Acceleration Led Board To Consider Cases "Superficially."
According to the Los Angeles Times:
"[Former Immigration and Naturalization Service general counsel T. Alexander]
Aleinikoff said the acceleration of decisions by the appeals board left the
individual members too little time to consider each case more than
superficially. 'These are very important cases for the immigrants involved and
for the American people,' Aleinikoff said. 'To establish a program that rewards
speed ... is troubling from the start.'" [Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03]

Los
Angeles Times: "Virtually All Summary Rulings"
Came Down "Against Immigrants." According to the Los Angeles Times: "The proportion of summary rulings -- those
issued with no elaboration -- rose markedly until they accounted for more than
half of the board's decisions by August. Virtually all summary rulings
supported findings by immigration judges against immigrants." [Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03]

This tension between judicial and
administrative adjudicators is not due to judicial hostility to the nation's
immigration policies or to a misconception of the proper standard of judicial
review of administrative decisions. It is due to the fact that the adjudication
of these cases at the administrative level has fallen below the minimum
standards of legal justice. Whether this is due to resource constraints or to
other circumstances beyond the Board's and the Immigration Court's control, we do not
know, though we note that the problem is not of recent origin. All that is
clear is that it cannot be in the interest of the immigration authorities, the
taxpayer, the federal judiciary, or citizens concerned with the effective
enforcement of the nation's immigration laws for removal orders to be routinely
nullified by the courts, and that the power of correction lies in the
Department of Homeland Security, which prosecutes removal cases, and the
Department of Justice, which adjudicates them in its Immigration Court and
Board of Immigration Appeals. [Benslimane
v. Gonzales, No. 04-1339, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh District, 11/30/05, pp. 2-3]

Kobach's Reforms Led To
Sevenfold Increase In Appeals, Overburdening
Immigration Court System. According to The Pitch: "Appeals increased sevenfold
between 2001 and 2005. Overburdened federal judges began criticizing the
changes..." [The Pitch, 1/4/07]

The Justice Department
Has Proposed Reversing Kobach's Reforms. According to The Pitch: "effectively reversing Kobach's reforms, the Justice
Department is now proposing to boost the number of judges and mandate full
opinions instead of one-line decisions." [The Pitch, 1/4/07]

Dismissal Of Judges

Reduction Of Board
Size Led To Dismissal Of Five Pro-Immigration Judges That Some Called "Purge."
According to the Los Angeles Times:
"Five of the 16 members of the nation's highest immigration appeals board have
been asked to find other jobs, congressional and legal sources said, in what
critics termed a 'purge' by the Justice Department of the most pro-immigrant
board members... 'There is no purge,' responded a Justice Department spokesman.
The board is being reduced to 11 members at the end of this month as part of a
previously announced streamlining plan, he added." [Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03]

Dismissals Sent "A
Signal To The Remaining [Members] That If You Don't Toe The Line, You Could Be
In Jeopardy." According to the Los
Angeles Times: "'This sends a signal to the remaining [members] that if you
don't toe the line, you could be in jeopardy,' said a Senate aide who asked not
to be identified. 'It is a serious public policy concern, because you want to
have an immigration system in place in which the judges are able to exercise
independent judgment.'... The five 'are definitely pro-immigrant,' said
immigration lawyer Lory Rosenberg, a former board member who said she also had
confirmed the pending shake-up.'" [Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03]

Former BIA Judge: Dismissal
Decisions Were Not Made On The Basis Of Seniority. According to the Los Angeles Times: "'Skewing the balance
of people on that board is very questionable,' added [former Board of
Immigration Appeals member Lory] Rosenberg, who had been one of the board's
most liberal members. 'It's unclear to me what standard they have used to make
the decision -- they definitely did not use seniority.'" [Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03]

Former INS General
Counsel: Without Other Explanation, Dismissal "Has All The Appearances Of A
Purge Of Dedicated Civil Servants Based On A Perception Of Their Policy Views."
According to the Los Angeles Times:
"'Until the attorney general discloses his reasons for informing these five
people that they should seek other work, this has all the appearances of a
purge of dedicated civil servants based on a perception of their policy views,'
said T. Alexander Aleinikoff, who was general counsel of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service in the Clinton administration and now teaches law at
Georgetown University." [Los Angeles Times, 3/12/03]